Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 8, 2012 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT

4:30 pm
exhibits.
4:31 pm
>> please proceed. >> sorry for the delay. chairperson hur: give the witness a copy. >> sheriff, except it 80 --
4:32 pm
exhibit 80 is the package of text messages from you and your wife. could you turn to the text messages on january 4? five or six pages in. chairperson hur: so we are all on the same page, can you tell us the code there is a page that has text messages from january 2, third, and forth. -- can you tell us -- >> there is a page that has text messages from january 2, 3, and four. it says, "left to -- you a vm, but did not hear back."
4:33 pm
that was sent on january 4. >> yes. >> did you leave a voicemail that morning for your wife? >> i am sure i did, yes. >> what was the subject of the voice mail? >> that i am returning your call. >> what was her call about suspects >> it was not clear. -- but was recalled about? >> it was not clear. -- what was her call about? >> it was not clear. that is why i asked a question in the text. i was not sure what my wife was referring to. >> what is it coming to the best of your recollection, the wife said in the message left for you? >> objection. chairperson hur: overruled.
4:34 pm
>> it was ambiguous. but honestly did not know. i was trying to get clarification. are you ok? what happened? >> can you tell me anything about what the message sounded like? anything at all? >> routine. >> routine about what? >> our son, potentially, or something else. nothing other than what it said. i did not understand. >> did you become aware of a telephone call your wife had on the morning of january 4 that lasted about 39 minutes? >> what is the question? >> have you become aware of a telephone call between your wife and ms. haynes that lasted about 39 minutes?
4:35 pm
>> yes, i have since become aware of it. yes. >> she was your campaign manager. >> yes. >> she had many responsibilities. >> yes. >> she had responsibility for the budget of your campaign? >> not exactly. there were other people involved in the budget of the campaign. she was a principal partner to it. >> she was the principal partner in helping to crofter public message during the campaign? >> not exactly. i had a consultant for that. >> did she do logistics for your campaign? >> yes. i would define it more like outreach and organizing the field, in campaign terms. >> when you have a person organizing in the field, problems arise in the field, and
4:36 pm
they help address them. >> objection. testifying. chairperson hur: wrap it up quickly. overruled. >> as it pertains to precincts and organizing in an election, correct. >> was she loyal to you? >> i would like to believe so. >> do you trust her? >> yes. >> do you value loyalty? >> yes. >> do you value her? >> yes. >> have you communicated with her before the morning of january for about what happened on december 31? >> not at all, no. >> had you left a message? text message?
4:37 pm
e-mail? >> no. >> had you ever communicated before january 4 about problems in your marriage? >> no. >> in 2011, did your wife ever go out with lynette, just the two of them? >> sure. >> how often? >> i do not know. >> on the fourth, your budget
4:38 pm
hearing concluded around 12:15 in the afternoon. >> i thought a little bit later, but i will believe you, if that is correct. >> in any case, did you leave a little later? >> later. >> where did you go? >> to my office. darting back and forth between my office and the sheriff's office, since i was four days away from being inaugurated and was still moving out of my supervisor's office. >> when you went to your office after the budget hearing, and did you just stop in for a moment? did you stay there for a while? were you moving things? >> moving. it was chaotic. there was a lot of moving going
4:39 pm
on the last few days. >> had michael hennessey already vacated the office you were going to move into? i mean the physical office. >> no. chairperson hur: counsel, if this is a good breaking point, we are at about 9:00. >> it is as good as any. chairperson hur: sheriff, i caution you that you are still under oath. we ask that you not discuss your testimony overnight, because you are still on the stand. >> i understand. thank you very much. chairperson hur: the witness is
4:40 pm
excused until tomorrow. counsel, if we could do a couple housekeeping things? typically, we would expect the exhibits that you planned to use with the witness in advance. i mean, you could pass them every time, but it probably disrupts your examination more than necessary. >> we brought them last week, but we did not think they were needed. we will bring them tomorrow morning. can you bring them tomorrow? >> we should be able to do that, yes. >> how much more time do you think you have? we have to figure out the schedule for the remaining witness tomorrow.
4:41 pm
>> how long do you think we have been going so far? >> almost an hour. >> i will say an hour. >> ok. >> the you have any sense yet of whether you want to -- do you have any sense of whether you want to redirect or anytime you would need? >> we would like to redirect. i don't think we would need more than an hour, maybe half an hour. >> so, we're starting at 9:00, 10:30. ok, here is what i propose. we start at 9, when we're done with the sheriff, we take a morning recess, that would be 10-15 minutes. after that, if you could have your client ready to testify,
4:42 pm
let's say 11, approximately. i am hoping that 11 will be safe. maybe we could take it a bit of a longer break, i am sure we have many administrative things that we can discuss if we have the time. just provided the mayor with some sense of when to show up. >> is that reasonable to the sheriff's council? any objection from the commissioners? ok, and then subsequent to that, we will have the mayor. we will take a lunch break after the mayor and then go into the examination after lunch.
4:43 pm
before we adjourn, it has been our practice to make interim rulings on the decisions we have made. these rulings are not final. we are in a continuing meeting. so, like if this was the normal one-day meeting, we would hear public comment but these are interim votes. because we have -- is there a motion to adopt the rule is that the commission has made? >> i will second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, the meeting is adjourned.
4:44 pm
>> good morning and welcome to the continued special meeting with the ethics commission. we are dealing with the misconduct charges of the sheriff. we apologize for the slight
4:45 pm
delay. it's not particularly set up well for witness testimony. so we had to adjust the seating. when we broke last night the sheriff was giving his testimony. sheriff, if you wouldn't mind taking the witness stand. please, be seated. >> thank you. ok. before we begin questioning, let's take the role. >> commissioner dudley, lou, renney? >> here. >> all members of the commission are present. witness is seated. council is ready. sheriff, i remind you that you are still under oath. >> please proceed. >> thank you. >> good morning, sheriff. >> good morning. >> sheriff, you were called
4:46 pm
being directed by chair of the commission last night not to discuss your testimony with anyone between the time you left the stand last night and this morning. do you recall that direction? >> yes. >> who have you spoken with since last night? >> my attorneys. >> what did you say to them? >> objection. >> objection sustained. >> ok. >> did you speak with anyone about your testimony? >> objection, relevant. >> i'll allow that. >> no. >> this morning did you stop for coffee? >> yes. >> who was there? >> objection, relevant. >> sustained. >> sheriff, i want to go back
4:47 pm
to your relationship with lynette. what is your relationship with lynette? >> professional and social. >> when did that relationship begin between you and ms. peralta haynes? >> i would say a few years ago when she was a legislative aide here at the board of supervisors and maybe before then. >> and when did she join your campaign for sheriff? >> about five weeks before the election. >> and can you describe your wife's relationship with lynette peralta haynes? 2011. >> i would say friendly, social. >> did you introduce them? >> i believe they just met themselves but since ms. peralta haynes worked on our
4:48 pm
campaign, that must have been one of the ways that they met. they could have met even before. >> have you referred to ms. peralta haynes in the past as a domestic violence advocate? >> me personally? >> yes. >> no. >> is your relationship with ms. paulettea haynes in the professional capacity as a political consultant or a domestic violence advocate? >> it's always been on a political/social level. >> sheriff, exhibit 82, which is an exhibit that's in the record is at&t phone records.
4:49 pm
that exhibit shows the 11:18 a.m. on january 4, your wife and lynette peralta haynes had a telephone call that lasted over 39 minutes. tell us everything you know about how your wife and lynette peralta haynes came to have that conversation on january 24. >> i'm sorry. i cannot tell you, because i didn't have a conversation with them about that conversation. >> so you have no idea how your wife and lynette peralta haynes ended up having a phone call on the morning of january 24? >> well, i would suspect we are four days from me being inaugurated as the 3r5th sheriff of the city of san francisco. that was also two days before where a rather sizeable dinner was being planned in honor of
4:50 pm
the people and volunteers who worked on our campaign. and there was a great amount of detail in transitioning from my office as supervisor to the fourth floor here in the sheriff's department. so there was a great deal going on. any one of those topics or themes could have been part of their conversation. a great deal was going on in my family and the people close to my family. >> commission, i'm going to make a conditional motion to strike the lack of foundation and i'm going to see whether this is speculation on the part of the sheriff. >> conditional motion to strike is overruled. >> i'm going to make a motion to strike as lacking foundation. >> i think you invited the answer. i'm going to overrule it. >> sheriff, you've discussed some of the things that were
4:51 pm
happening that week as potential reasons for your wife's call with lynette peralta haynes on the morning of january 24. >> as i just shared. >> ok. do you in fact know why that call occurred on the morning of january 24? >> no. i cannot speak for my wife or ms. peralta haynes. >> between december 31, and january 24, did you ever mention lynette peralta haynes to your wife? >> i'm sure i had. >> and in what context did you mention ms. lynette peralta haynes to your wife between that time? >> as a principle partner in our post campaign infrastructure in preparing for the gnawing raul and the dinner that i just mentioned.
4:52 pm
>> did you ever mention to your wife during that timely net peralta haynes' background in domestic violence? >> no. >> what contact did you have with lynette peralta haynes between december 31 and january 24? >> very minimal. some text messages and some phone calls. strictly related to the transition of our office from supervisor to sheriff. >> did any of your communications with ms. peralta haynes between the 31 and the morning of january 4 mention any issues surrounding a conflict between you and your wife? >> no. >> that was completely absent? >> yes.
4:53 pm
>> now sheriff, last night we were looking at a text message you sent to your wife. >> yes. >> left you a v.m. but didn't hear back. what happened? and your testimony was that you were following up on a voicemail message that you had left, correct? >> in response to my wife, yes. >> and so you did leave a voicemail message that morning for your wife? >> yes. >> and that voicemail message that you left for your wife was in response for what? >> as i said last night in the testimony, it was very vague. and as i said, i was speculating it was routine, probably having to do with our son. >> so is it your testimony that your wife had left you a message early in the morning on january 4? >> objection.
4:54 pm
asked and answered. >> i'll allow it. it is similar ground he went over, so i hope -- >> i'm just trying to get up to speed here. >> overruled. >> i believe i was returning her call. >> ok. and when had she left that message for you? >> i do not have the record in front. so i cannot tell you. >> was it a message that she left for you on january 4? >> if she had, it would have been in the morning, yes. >> i'm going to ask the commission and the sheriff to turn to exhibit 83. do we have a set of binders for the witness?
4:55 pm
>> so sheriff would you please turn to exhibit 83. it should be the last tab in the volume that you have which is volume two of the mayor's exhibit. and just to explain to the commission, this is an exhibit of the mayor that is evidence. it is a compilation of information that in the mayor's possession regarding communications on january 4 among -- i should say between sheriff and ms. lopez, ms. williams, ms. madison, mr. merritten and ms. peralta haynes, and likewise
4:56 pm
communications between ms. lopez and the sheriff, ms. williams, ms. madison, mr. merritten and ms. peralta haynes. it's a conferencelation taken from the telephone records from at&t as well as those text messages that the mayor's office has. so that is exhibit 83. >> so the names have been substituted for phone numbers? >> that is correct. so sheriff, i'm going to ask you to turn to page two of exhibit 83. now sheriff, can you see on the
4:57 pm
top line of that exhibit? >> yes. >> does that reflect the text message that you sent to your wife at 12:03 p.m. on january 4? >> on page three, i have here. page 3 of 17. >> sheriff, you should be on exhibit 83, not 82, sorry. >> yes. >> ok. are you on page two of exhibit 83? >> yes. >> you see that top line reflects that 12:03 p.m. text message? >> yes. >> and that's referencesing a voicemail that you left for your wife? >> yes. >> ok. looking at page one of exhibit 83, >> yes.
4:58 pm
>> you have communications on january 4 that occurred before 12:03 in the afternoon. these are in chronological order. do you see those? >> i do. >> now as we go up the page, starting from the bottom, the previous -- the next call prior to the 12:03 text message that we see here that you sent. that we see here from you to the 9:33 a.m. phone call that lasted 36 seconds. do you see that? >> i do. >> ok. does that square with your memory of when you left the voicemail message for your wife? >> i do not know if that was
4:59 pm
voicemail or direct contact. >> ok. do you have any reason to doubt -- were you making calls to your wife on the morning of january 4 from any other phone besides your cell phone? >> no, i don't believe so. but maybe one from city hall -- but i doubt it. i think it was all cell phone, because i was en route to san bruno. >> ok. do you recall being en route to san bruno when you left the voicemail message for your wife? >> again, i -- i'm not sure. >> ok. now sheriff, as we look at page one of exhibit 33, -- >> i'm sorry 33?
left
right